Priority setting for new systematic reviews: processes and lessons learned in three regions in Africa

Author:

Effa Emmanuel EORCID,Oduwole Olabisi,Schoonees Anel,Hohlfeld Ameer,Durao Solange,Kredo TamaraORCID,Mbuagbaw Lawrence,Meremikwu Martin,Ongolo-Zogo Pierre,Wiysonge Charles,Young TarynORCID

Abstract

Priority setting to identify topical and context relevant questions for systematic reviews involves an explicit, iterative and inclusive process. In resource-constrained settings of low-income and middle-income countries, priority setting for health related research activities ensures efficient use of resources. In this paper, we critically reflect on the approaches and specific processes adopted across three regions of Africa, present some of the outcomes and share the lessons learnt while carrying out these activities. Priority setting for new systematic reviews was conducted between 2016 and 2018 across three regions in Africa. Different approaches were used: Multimodal approach (Central Africa), Modified Delphi approach (West Africa) and Multilevel stakeholder discussion (Southern-Eastern Africa). Several questions that can feed into systematic reviews have emerged from these activities. We have learnt that collaborative subregional efforts using an integrative approach can effectively lead to the identification of region specific priorities. Systematic review workshops including discussion about the role and value of reviews to inform policy and research agendas were a useful part of the engagements. This may also enable relevant stakeholders to contribute towards the priority setting process in meaningful ways. However, certain shared challenges were identified, including that emerging priorities may be overlooked due to differences in burden of disease data and differences in language can hinder effective participation by stakeholders. We found that face-to-face contact is crucial for success and follow-up engagement with stakeholders is critical in driving acceptance of the findings and planning future progress.

Funder

Cochrane

UKaid

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Policy

Reference25 articles.

1. Rudan I , Kapiriri L , Tomlinson M , et al . Evidence-Based priority setting for health care and research: tools to support policy in maternal, neonatal, and child health in Africa. PLoS Med 2010;7:e1000308.doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000308

2. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set

3. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation HDN, Bank TW . The global burden of disease: generating evidence, guiding policy — sub-Saharan Africa regional edition. Seattle, WA, 2013. Available: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/831161468191672519/pdf/808520PUB0ENGL0Box0379820B00PUBLIC0.pdf

4. WHO . Global status report on noncommunicable diseases 2010.

5. Global priority setting for Cochrane systematic reviews of health promotion and public health research

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3